1. The area has to be a square, but does not have to be the precise outline of an existing Ordnance Survey grid square (i.e. you can shift a bit to avoid motorways!)
2. All species must be within the square, or deemed to be probably in the square (but birds flying miles away don't count).
3. The species must be detected between 1st Jan 2013 and 31st Dec 2013, although identifications can continue afterwards if necessary.
4. For the purposes of the species total, only species-level identifications count. Aggregates of any defined grouping at greater than species level, where no species within that grouping have been identified, should be recorded though and count in the case of a tie!
5. The participant does not have to fully identify each species themselves; help is allowed, so long as the participant is engaged in the identification process and understands why the species is what it is (i.e. no sending buckets of flies to the local museum...)
6. Evidence-only records (mole hills, galls, leaf-miners, bat detections etc) do not count unless the organism itself is seen or heard. Such records should of course still be written down.
7. Dead things count so long as they clearly died within the square (e.g. pitfall traps).
8. Garden plants are allowable if they have spread under their own steam more than 2 metres from the nearest garden boundary.
9. Trees that have clearly been planted deliberately, for whatever reason, are not countable; however, it has to be accepted that it may be impossible to tell for older native trees and in such cases the species can be included.
10. All records should be submitted to the relevant local or national recording society or local record centre, as appropriate.
What have I missed? Also, quite happy to have some of these debated...
 |
| Crocus in Shotesham, Feb 2010 - countable or not? |
Oh, for birds, they need to be on Category A or C of the BOU list. Same sort of thing for other groups - you can't have deer-park Fallow Deer, goldfish, domestic mammals. But you can have human, so long as they're really really wild.
ReplyDeleteFancy a go at this next year but I reckon we should include records from things like leaf-miners and bat detectors where the id is positive.
ReplyDeleteIf aggs aren't counted what about identification based on balance of probabilities (i.e. when a cryptic congener of a common species is really rare).
I don't expect to do too well as I'm a dunce when it comes to plants but should be fun.
Hi Brian - great to have you on board! I agree leaf-mines and bat detections are really important records, but are they enough to "count"? I personally have different categories - from "OK in all respects" to "evidence only" to "see but not self-identified" etc. I quite like the idea of looking for leaf miners and gall causers themselves, not just looking for the evidence. Similar to Mark Telfer's points on his website. Also with bats - yes, I was delighted to find evidence of Barbastelle in my garden, but when it's just a squiggle on a computer screen it's not quite the same as clapping eyes on the beast... Anyway, I don't want to impose rules on anyone, so maybe we should try to keep separate totals for different categories?
DeleteHi Brian - if you'd like to join in and post to this blog, please send your email address to andy AT bubo DOT org
DeleteVery tempted to join in Andy, especially as I'll be a new dad before Christmas and will need to get my nat hist kicks in 2013 without doing long drives.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rules, you could pretty much follow the Pan-species Listing rules about what does and doesn't count within the 1km square:
http://markgtelfer.co.uk/listing/the-rules/
... have a look and see what you think.
Mark
Hi Mark, good luck for the impending arrival. It was becoming a dad that really got me into pan-species listing in the late 90s, when I had to graduate from chasing rare birds around the country. (Would never do that now.... certainly wouldn't have found me on a windswept shingle beach in an ice-storm this afternoon failing to see an Arctic Redpoll, no siree).
DeleteAnyway, thanks for the rules. As you know full well, it's hard to please everyone. Maybe we should record in certain categories?
1. Live species seen and self-identified (although I never differentiate with birds, as the vocalisations are as much the bird as the sight)
2. Evidence of species self-identified (including heard, dead, mine, galls, spraints etc?)
3. Species recorded but not self-identified
4. Aggregate recorded
Andy
I'm happy to go with your rules Andy although I'd prefer things like galls, leaf mines, etc to count, as long as they can be accurately identified and therefore constitute valid biological records. Tony
ReplyDeleteLeaf mines and galls - yes please! And bat detectors - all normally accepted as records.
ReplyDeleteI'd ID the presence of a fox by smell or badger by fresh activity - again no worse than the record of a carcass?
Blimey, smell ID?! I can hardly smell, so no good for me. But I guess it comes under the general heading of "evidence of..." (see reply to Mark above)
DeleteCan't see it mentioned in the rules, but wasn't it meant that you live within the 1km square? I wouldn't list anything by smell only, though tenanted mines, active larval cases and live galls seem fine to me.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark - if you'd like to join in and post to this blog, please send your email address to andy AT bubo DOT org
DeleteWell, I initially intended it to mean home square - and for most people this is going to be easier for things like moth-trapping. But I guess it doesn't have to be; if you live somewhere very built up but work in a more interesting square?
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, I'd definitely include tenanted mines, cases and galls, but the question is whether you need to see the organism, or just the evidence. The latter is clearly fine for recording purposes, but it's a bit less than satisfactory from a personal point of view. A friend once commented to me that ticking an empty leaf-mine was not much different to ticking a pile of dog dirt...
I would definitely agree that you would have to see/hear the actual organism, live or dead, rather than just get evidence that it was once there. Otherwise I may go fossil hunting...
ReplyDeleteJust in case some people are put off because of the "1000 species" thing, I am 100% sure that I will not be able to find 1000 species in 2013. I am just taking 2013 as a starting point and see how close to 1000 I get at the end of the year. I hope to find 1000 species in my home square eventually. As Andy has said, the main purpose is to learn what's around us and improve ID skills. If we can get a little community together to help each other out, that will be great.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, I have a hunch that 1000 is possible for me, but I don't really know if I'll manage it. It's just a number to get me out of bed in the morning.
DeleteGreat idea andy - I'm in. Fancy an iRecord recording form to keep a tally?
ReplyDeleteHi David. Could do? Not sure exactly how it might work. Would we do something embeddable in this blog? (I can give writing rights to anyone who wants to take part). Or something within iRecord itself?
ReplyDeleteProbably both if you can embed Iframes in your blog
DeleteEr, I have no idea. Perhaps - I'll have to look into it
DeleteHiya Andy, what a great concept!
ReplyDeleteFrom now on I'd like to be known as TQ1960 please :)
Any chance you could knock up a Facebook Group?
And I'm still waiting for the "All-taxa Spreadsheets" so we can all see who needs what for their square, lol.
Cheers mate,
Seth.
Hi Seth - great to have you on board too.
DeleteYes, I suppose we could have a Facebook group as well. All this technology gets me a bit confused in terms of setting up the best way to communicate, but I guess FB might add something to the blog? But I'm also happy to let everyone contribute direct to the blog too. I'll try to send out some invites now...
In fact, is there any point setting up a separate FB page/group/thing for this 1000for1ksq challenge when there's already the PSL group? I don't want to crash an existing group, but if most of the readers are the same people...? Whaddya think?
DeleteI won't REALLY count fox on smell alone!! I think we all need to play by the same rules rather than have different types of lists. I agree with tenanted mines and galls (I only count live things for my PSL.
ReplyDeleteI will be using my 'home' square cos of the moth trapping! But there is a lot of 'dead' inaccessible private land to the south and a LITTLE bit of woodland to the north, so may I 'shift' my square up a bit?
You could do, it just seems a bit easier for submitting biological records to stick to a single square that's all.
DeleteFair point. Just gonna shift it up a bit so that I can include a circular walk on footpaths. The main recording site will doubtless be my garden - this will actually inspire me to get the moth trap out more often!
DeleteI set up a facebook page for the PSL (which anyone can join). I do nothing with it now (except post stuff) the same as anyone else can.
ReplyDeleteI think the PSL page on Facebook should remain it's own entity, I'd definitely keep it seperate from this 1ksq challenge's page.
ReplyDeleteThe PSL page was, I think, originally intended for folks to flag up their recent additions as they added to their own PSLs, maybe try to organise field outings with other members, post pics of mystery species for ID help, learn and swap ID tips from other members, highlight useful websites/literature and so on.
I suspect this 1000 species in a square challenge will be a bit different. More of a series of blogs as the months progress through 2013. There will be rivalries and grips throughout, no doubt. But it will be lots of individual blogs as opposed to shared blogs. I don't think we should muddy the PSL Facebook page's raison d'être with this one, even if (at the moment) many members are shared between PSL and here.
But that's just my tuppence worth. Personally I'm positively champing at the bit for megabashing my chosen square throughout 2013 AND adding mightily to my Pan-species List!!! :D
I wasn't suggesting using the same page! Just saying that it's easy to set one up on Facebook and anyone can post on it.
Delete